Joerg Schilling <joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote, on 26 Apr 2018: > > > > . and .. are artefacts of an implementation detail from the 1970s > > > and only present because this did save code space. A conforming > > > filesystem may > > > not have them at all. I would be happy if this artefact was made history. > > > The problem: what do you gain if at least one shell and one filesystem > > > still > > > includes them? > > > > I don't gain much. But at least POSIX wouldn't be preventing > > shells to do the *right* thing. Currently, shells are reluctant > > to fix their shell because that would break POSIX compliance. > > > > IIRC, last time that was discussed, Geoff was not opposed to > > making that change. > > Since I believe I was the first who implemented a filesystem without . and .. > (my COW filesystem WOFS from 1990/1991), I would be happy if that was allowed.
If . and .. don't exist in the file system, then POSIX *requires* that the expansion of .* does not include them. What we're discussing here is allowing the expansion of .* not to include them when they do exist. -- Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
